# Posted 5:38 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE BRITISH PAPERS: None other than Thomas Carothers told me that as an American in Britian, one of the most important decisions I would make is what paper to read. While talking to Tom back in early 2000, I had no idea that the choices were all a step down from the Washington Post. And I don't think Tom had any idea that I could avoid the decision entirely by reading American papers online, an option not available to Tom back when he was here on an unnamed, yet still prestigious fellowship.

But sometimes, when I go away for the weekend, I find myself cut off from cyberspace and forced to read the bricks-and-mortar broadsheets that get sold around these parts. This was one of those these weekends. And as always, I found something of interest alongside the colorfully incoherent anti-American ranting that passes for political commentary in these parts.

First of all, the Times reported on Friday that in just 82 minutes, one of its correspondents tracked down four of Britain's eight most wanted criminals, relying on nothing more than his internet connection and public records. Two questions on that: First, if this guy is so good, why doesn't he spend some more time catching bad guys? Second, just what the hell do the police here do all day?

The Times also picked up the following quote from Spanish PM J.M. Aznar, who observed that

“I did tell the President that we need a lot of Powell and not much of Rumsfeld,” said Señor Aznar, referring to Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. “Ministers of Defence should talk less, shouldn’t they? The more Powell speaks and the less Rumsfeld speaks, that wouldn’t be a bad thing altogether.”

With all due to respect to a loyal ally, I think Mr. Aznar has it wrong. Nothing short of replacing George W. Bush with Jimmy Carter could calm down anti-war Europe.

Friday's Independent led off with a headline declaring: Blix Damns Iraq: Too Little, Too Late. While the Indy isn't the Guardian, a headline like that still meant there were no kinds words from Blix that might be spun into good news for the anti-war movement. (NB: The Guardian tried pretty hard, though.)

Inside the paper, an article covering Bush's speech on postwar Iraq kindly observed that

Critics will dismiss the rhetoric as a familiar example of US self-interest, grudgebearing and paranoia clothed in a pious idealism. But the idealism is not entirely phoney.

But lest the Indy sacrifice its street credibility, it balanced this feint praise with a headline informing its readers that "Bush's blueprint for future conceals a declaration of war." No way! Bush in favor of war???

Moving on, we come to the editorial page, where the Indy featured a point-counterpoint on American efforts to bring democracy in the Middle East. I have to admit I was impressed. I only expected a counterpoing.

Finally, we get to this quote from a masthead editorial in today's Indy. Yes, I read it online. And no, I am not making this up:

"...on the eve of war we'll settle for Saddam's game-playing, and urge the conviction Prime Minister to be more pragmatic. Whatever the motives of Saddam, the UN weapons inspectors are making some progress."

As they say in New York, don't hate the playa, hate the game.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion